PDA

View Full Version : [3.P] Which creature types should be crit immune?



Endarire
2010-08-30, 04:01 PM
In 3.5, it was elementals, oozes, undead, constructs, deathless, and plants. In Pathfinder, it's elementals and oozes. (Deathless haven't been updated.) There are other ways to become crit immune, but I ask which creature types should always be crit immune.

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 04:04 PM
Undead and constructs indeed should not be. Both of them have points of structural weakness that one could hit for, as they say in the vernacular, massive damage.

Temotei
2010-08-30, 04:07 PM
Oozes for sure, methinks. Elementals, maybe.

Plants, probably not. Cut roots, or...whatever.

Hirax
2010-08-30, 04:07 PM
I agree that only elementals and oozes should be given crit immunity.

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 04:08 PM
Yeah. Anything with a non-homogeneous anatomy is likely vulnerable to critical hits.

Oozes and Elementals are both made of the same stuff all the way through. Beyond that... Not sure there is much of anything.

JoshuaZ
2010-08-30, 04:10 PM
I don't know if undead in general should or should not be. But definitely some undead should not be. Since vampires are immune to criticals it is essentially not possible to stake a vampire in the heart. One houserule I've seen for this is vampires are subject to crits only from wooden piercing weapons.

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 04:11 PM
If a vampire is vulnerable to HP damage, which he is, I see no reason why he can't be critted. He relies on the integrity of his body to be able to move and such. Damage to a joint would impair him--such a hit would be a critical.

Zaydos
2010-08-30, 04:15 PM
I've got to go with the only Elementals and Oozes make sense. Generally big magical robots have some weak spot (just look at Talos from Greek myth and his Achilles' heel... except he was killed by a group that included Achilles' dad). Undead rely on structural integrity, and vampires can be head shot just as well as anything else (if any undead are questionable it is the incorporeal forms and maybe liches).

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 04:17 PM
I was thinking of the incorporeals myself, yeah. Liches too. But, again, a Lich body can be hurt, killed. Therefore, it can likely be hurt MORE with a well aimed shot.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-30, 04:19 PM
Yeah. Anything with a non-homogeneous anatomy is likely vulnerable to critical hits.

Oozes and Elementals are both made of the same stuff all the way through. Beyond that... Not sure there is much of anything.

Agreed. The whole idea of a crit is that there is some vulnerable spot you can target for significantly more damage. This concept works for almost everything.

Oozes, elementals, perhaps certain types of plants or swarms...in general, just those things that do not have discernable anatomy.

Zaydos
2010-08-30, 04:20 PM
Yeah I'm rather on the fence about liches. There body is held together mostly by magic (and even can be reconstituted entirely by it). A skeleton's body is held together by relatively weak (and simple) magic compared to that holding a lich's together so I'd leave the question mark for liches (and their silly phylacteries) but it's one that I wouldn't be ready to push all the way into either side.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-30, 04:20 PM
"It can be hurt, therefore it can be hurt more" shouldn't be the underlying logic, otherwise anything with hitpoints could be critted. Instead, something with a completely homogeneous body, like an ooze, would not be critted.
Crits would apply, basically, to anything with a heterogeneous form. Joins? crit! Different parts serving different functions? CRIT

Only oozes would be immune.

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 04:22 PM
Okay, well, I missed some steps there, yeah. Namely, it has discernible features, points where the physical body does the job, not the animating magic.

For an elemental or an ooze, the entire body is composed of the same substance. An elemental may take humanoid shape, but it doesn't have a humanoid form. It has no bones, no joints. And ooze is similarly amorphous.

In the case of a lich, it is very specifically a skeleton, and does act as if it were one. Now, it's held together by magic rather than ligament, but that's not really a big thing.

hamishspence
2010-08-30, 04:24 PM
Yup- plants have stems which can be severed. And some elemental creatures- magmins, for example, or thoqquas, have a more "natural" physical form than convential elementals.

If you're playing 4E, even oozes can be critted- if you think of them as amoeba-like, this could be a hit to the nucleus.

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 04:25 PM
You know, one could argue crits for elementals and oozes, too.

You damage them by... hacking off parts, I imagine, right? A Crit would be a lucky blow that manages to hack off more than usual, dealing more damage.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-30, 04:26 PM
Oozes have always played a role more likened to that of primitive fungi: They're actually a colony of identical cells put together to better obtain FOOD. Mostly they're all independent of each other so separating them won't do much.


You know, one could argue crits for elementals and oozes, too.

You damage them by... hacking off parts, I imagine, right? A Crit would be a lucky blow that manages to hack off more than usual, dealing more damage.

That is just the normal dice roll's variance.

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 04:30 PM
That is just the normal dice roll's variance.

Well, sure. Never said I'd run it that way--just a theoretically plausible argument.

Keld Denar
2010-08-30, 04:30 PM
I'd say Oozes, Elementals, and Incorporial Undead. Incorps make sense in the same manner as Oozes and Elementals. They are relatively homogenous. A Shadow is competely made up of animated shadow-stuff, negative energy, and a single minded desire to drain the life force from living creatures.

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 04:31 PM
Sounds about right to me.

Lapak
2010-08-30, 04:35 PM
I'd say Oozes, Elementals, and Incorporial Undead. Incorps make sense in the same manner as Oozes and Elementals. They are relatively homogenous. A Shadow is competely made up of animated shadow-stuff, negative energy, and a single minded desire to drain the life force from living creatures.Yep, this is where my vote goes.

Glimbur
2010-08-30, 04:42 PM
Everything should be crittable. Sure, oozes don't have an anatomy that you or I can discern, but they can still surge forward at the wrong time and lean in to your attack, or otherwise you get extra lucky in your attack. Hit points are abstract anyway, why should crits require landing a blow somewhere special?

This would streamline the game very slightly, because you would no longer have to ask "can I crit this?" Rogues will still have trouble with oozes and elementals because they are difficult to flank and often have extra senses which make them difficult to surprise. I'm not even a first level rogue, its plausible that such a skilled individual has knowledge we lack and can therefore strike even seemingly formless creatures for extra damage.

tl;dr Mechanically it's not an issue to let everything be crittable and there are minor benefits.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 04:43 PM
One could justify the idea that even joint shots to a corporeal undead wouldn't be critical with this idea:

They don't need the joints. After all, what's holding these bones in place at all? Magic. So suddenly there's a gap, big deal. The reason they're killable at all is that even if they can continue to function with 90% of their body literally missing, they pretty much cease to be a threat.

It's sort of one of those alternate concepts for zombies: You can't kill them, period. Not even with a headshot. But a quivering pile of fleshy goo on the floor isn't going to hurt anybody, and is functionally "dead." Same principle with DnD undead. They're not technically gone, but they're functionally harmless.

Of course, the Fridge Horror (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeHorror) of And I Must Scream (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AndIMustScream) is just a bonus.

Zaydos
2010-08-30, 04:44 PM
The fact that vorpal swords don't work on most types of undead (exception: vampires, it calls them out, at least in 3.0) does lend credence to a head shot not doing anything to a D&D zombie.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 04:45 PM
The fact that vorpal swords don't work on most types of undead (exception: vampires, it calls them out, at least in 3.0) does lend credence to a head shot not doing anything to a D&D zombie.

I was trying to draw a parallel to zombie movies, not DnD-flavored zombies.


Everything should be crittable. Sure, oozes don't have an anatomy that you or I can discern, but they can still surge forward at the wrong time and lean in to your attack, or otherwise you get extra lucky in your attack. Hit points are abstract anyway, why should crits require landing a blow somewhere special?

Because crits aren't "hitting extra hard." Rolling high is "hitting extra hard." Crits are "hits somewhere where the damage matters more."

Which for me means it would make sense if instead of the +whateverd6 rogues get for Sneak Attacking, they just autocrit. Because it's doing the same thing, just on purpose.

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 04:46 PM
D&D flavored zombies definitely work differently than standard movie-types. The lack of the headshot kill, fire/etc being effective, and so forth.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 04:50 PM
D&D flavored zombies definitely work differently than standard movie-types. The lack of the headshot kill, fire/etc being effective, and so forth.

Yes, I know. That's why it was a metaphor. The relevent bit is "they don't actually die, they just stop being able to function, on account of being a stain on the floor."

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 04:51 PM
Right. I was just elaborating a bit on the concept, as it's something that's somewhat interesting.

Lapak
2010-08-30, 04:53 PM
They don't need the joints. After all, what's holding these bones in place at all? Magic. So suddenly there's a gap, big deal. The reason they're killable at all is that even if they can continue to function with 90% of their body literally missing, they pretty much cease to be a threat.Well, in that case (for a skeleton) striking at the weak points in the bones themselves, where they are thinner or more delicate, constitutes a vulnerability. With pretty much anything that has distinct parts and is destructible at all, there are places to hit it that are more damaging than others.


Which for me means it would make sense if instead of the +whateverd6 rogues get for Sneak Attacking, they just autocrit. Because it's doing the same thing, just on purpose.Which is more or less how Backstabbing worked in earlier editions - double damage, with the multiplier increasing with higher levels. I do like the 3.x implementation, though, in that a sneak-attacker can disregard the base damage on their weapon and actually do significant harm with a dagger.

Zaydos
2010-08-30, 04:56 PM
I was trying to draw a parallel to zombie movies, not DnD-flavored zombies.

I was citing supporting evidence for your point. That decapitation specifically in the rules does not kill a zombie lends credence to the argument that D&D zombies are unlike movie zombies.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 05:01 PM
Well, in that case (for a skeleton) striking at the weak points in the bones themselves, where they are thinner or more delicate, constitutes a vulnerability. With pretty much anything that has distinct parts and is destructible at all, there are places to hit it that are more damaging than others.

But the point I was trying to make is that even breaking the bones doesn't matter. Because sure, their femur is now in two pieces. But since the only thing holding it in place anyway was magic, now you just have it in two pieces, and still floating there and not inhibiting the skeleton in the least. (Unless of course the pieces were violently thrown across the room from the impact. Then there's a six-inch gap in the femur, but the skeleton just acts like nothing happened anyway.)

Now, what would make sense would be to disarm the skeleton. Literally. Now sure, he's still not technically dead, but what's he gonna do? Glare at you menacingly?

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 05:04 PM
But if breaking the bones doesn't matter, how exactly is the PC hurting it?

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 05:05 PM
But if breaking the bones doesn't matter, how exactly is the PC hurting it?

Well, as was mentioned, HP is an abstaction. You AREN'T hurting it, at least in the sense that it's not any closer to death, and not in any sort of pain.

What you ARE doing is bring it closer to that point that, while alive, it doesn't have enough pieces left to hurt you. It's just a very angry ribcage, or something.

Zaydos
2010-08-30, 05:05 PM
Also in every edition the rules do make clear that breaking a skeleton's bones does matter; that's why it has DR 5/bludgeoning (or in earlier editions takes half damage from slashing and piercing) because bludgeoning weapons breaks their bones. The question is, does hitting a specific part of its body do even more damage to it?

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 05:09 PM
Also in every edition the rules do make clear that breaking a skeleton's bones does matter; that's why it has DR 5/bludgeoning (or in earlier editions takes half damage from slashing and piercing) because bludgeoning weapons breaks their bones. The question is, does hitting a specific part of its body do even more damage to it?

Still doesn't really violate the idea. Bludgeoning is more efficient at breaking bones, particularly since it's more likely to send pieces flying about the room (and hence away from the incredibly vague field-of-holding-bones-upness) instead of simply being in two pieces but still floating there.

And the second bit would be exactly why you can't crit them: Because where you hit is irrelevent. It can survive without a skull just as easily as it can survive without a hip. Or a shoulder blade. Or a rib.

holywhippet
2010-08-30, 05:10 PM
I can understand a lot of those types being immune to sneak attack/backstab damage since there is no really vital spot to target. But a critical hit isn't just a matter of hitting someone where it hurts. You could consider this scenario - your enemy gets momentarily distracted, or stumbles on something on the ground. As a result their guard is down - you see this and swing extra hard knowing they can't hope to block or deflect it.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 05:12 PM
I can understand a lot of those types being immune to sneak attack/backstab damage since there is no really vital spot to target. But a critical hit isn't just a matter of hitting someone where it hurts. You could consider this scenario - your enemy gets momentarily distracted, or stumbles on something on the ground. As a result their guard is down - you see this and swing extra hard knowing they can't hope to block or deflect it.

They have a term for that. It's called "flat-footed." And it doesn't happen all that often.

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 05:12 PM
Or 'flanked'.

Zaydos
2010-08-30, 05:13 PM
Plus our good ol' friend power attack to do the extra damage (by sacrificing the bonus gained by flanking or them being flat-footed).

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 05:15 PM
Or 'flanked'.

Doesn't being flanked make you flat-footed? Or was that a house rule of mine? I get those mixed up sometimes.

Esser-Z
2010-08-30, 05:15 PM
No, I don't think so--otherwise the +2 to hit would be incredibly amazing, at least against dodging-based foes. It lets rogues sneak attack, and gives people bonuses, but doesn't actually flat foot.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 05:21 PM
No, I don't think so--otherwise the +2 to hit would be incredibly amazing, at least against dodging-based foes. It lets rogues sneak attack, and gives people bonuses, but doesn't actually flat foot.

Definately houserule then, since I remember that in the houserule you didn't get a +2 to hit. Just a flat-footed opponent.

erikun
2010-08-30, 05:28 PM
Incorporeal is about the only type I could see as having a "natural" critical immunity.

Anything physical has a chance of getting badly damaged by a lucky blow. Skeletons and zombies could get their hands crushed or their faces broken. Oozes could receive a blow that splits a large section in half, or get a significant portion cut off and thrown across the room, out of the fight. Golems and elementals can get joints and such broken, or at least disrupted for a few seconds. Of course, D&D doesn't have a method of dealing with broken hands or less psudopods to attack - it just uses the general Hit Point method for doing so.

Incorporeals, however, aren't really there. They're more like a spirit inhabiting the area than a physical object. You can't cut off a ghost's arm, and it would be hard to describe "hitting the spirit where it is important" outside of using something it is vulnerable to.

I guess swarms could possibly be crit-immune as well, although they would probably have vulnerabilities for the same reason as oozes (smashing a large group of them at once for more damage).

awa
2010-08-30, 06:54 PM
i agree with oozes and elemental swarms should not be crited as well
for some plants and aberrations i think i would allow a knowledge check to see if you can figure out what part of the creature is vulnerable.

Temotei
2010-08-30, 06:59 PM
Glare at you menacingly?

Actually, that could be very effective in some circumstances.

chiasaur11
2010-08-30, 07:09 PM
Actually, that could be very effective in some circumstances.

Yeah, but most of us aren't lucky enough to be Havelock Vetinari.

holywhippet
2010-08-30, 07:09 PM
They have a term for that. It's called "flat-footed." And it doesn't happen all that often.

You are missing my point. Combat is abstract is D&D - there's no clear indicatation of what exactly happens when a critical hit occurs. It could be that the target was hit somewhere vital, or it could be that the blow was extra strong for some reason.

FelixG
2010-08-30, 07:17 PM
I'd say Oozes, Elementals, and Incorporial Undead. Incorps make sense in the same manner as Oozes and Elementals. They are relatively homogenous. A Shadow is competely made up of animated shadow-stuff, negative energy, and a single minded desire to drain the life force from living creatures.

This is pretty much it for me, i was about to post the same thing before i did a quick search of the page :D

Orzel
2010-08-30, 07:29 PM
Oozes, Elementals, and Incorporeal Undead.

Basically anything that is made of all parts that neither matter for survival or movement, nor matter where they are located.

Chopping a water elemental's "arm" doesn't do jack. It doesn't need the arm to live. It doesn't need the arm to move. It doesn't need the arm to support itself. It doesn't need the arm to sense the world around it. And it can just "grow" it back. The only way to kill it is to smash it sooooo hard it lacks the energy to put itself back together.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-30, 07:38 PM
Everything should be crittable. Sure, oozes don't have an anatomy that you or I can discern, but they can still surge forward at the wrong time and lean in to your attack, or otherwise you get extra lucky in your attack. Hit points are abstract anyway, why should crits require landing a blow somewhere special?

This would streamline the game very slightly, because you would no longer have to ask "can I crit this?" Rogues will still have trouble with oozes and elementals because they are difficult to flank and often have extra senses which make them difficult to surprise. I'm not even a first level rogue, its plausible that such a skilled individual has knowledge we lack and can therefore strike even seemingly formless creatures for extra damage.

tl;dr Mechanically it's not an issue to let everything be crittable and there are minor benefits.The problem is that at such level there's no difference between sneak attacking, power attacking, critting or even doing iterative attacks. It's all one big ball of damage being dealt.



Well, as was mentioned, HP is an abstaction. You AREN'T hurting it, at least in the sense that it's not any closer to death, and not in any sort of pain.

What you ARE doing is bring it closer to that point that, while alive, it doesn't have enough pieces left to hurt you. It's just a very angry ribcage, or something.

Crits still apply within that concept. If you aren't ever causing it pain and instead are disabling it, if you hit critical points you'll disable it faster. After all if you cut off the wrist, you don't need to smash the fingers.


Doesn't being flanked make you flat-footed? Or was that a house rule of mine? I get those mixed up sometimes.

It is a houserule of yours. The fluff even say that being flanked sucks because you try to pay attention to two opposite enemies and it's really hard to do so.
(my group even lets you ignore an enemy - being therefore flatfooted against him - in favor of no longer being flanked. works wonders against rogues)

Glimbur
2010-08-30, 07:46 PM
The problem is that at such level there's no difference between sneak attacking, power attacking, critting or even doing iterative attacks. It's all one big ball of damage being dealt.

I don't see how that is a problem.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-30, 07:48 PM
I don't see how that is a problem.

It is a problem in that the concepts become impossible to differentiate. At that point you either abstract combat even further by streamlining all those extra damage tools together, or you accept a concept where they all fit.

Zaydos
2010-08-30, 07:51 PM
This argument is making me like the wound point variant.

erikun
2010-08-30, 07:56 PM
Everything should be crittable. Sure, oozes don't have an anatomy that you or I can discern, but they can still surge forward at the wrong time and lean in to your attack, or otherwise you get extra lucky in your attack. Hit points are abstract anyway, why should crits require landing a blow somewhere special?

The problem is that at such level there's no difference between sneak attacking, power attacking, critting or even doing iterative attacks. It's all one big ball of damage being dealt.
I don't see the difference between critting, sneak attacking, and power attacking at the moment - it's just different ways of dealing larger amounts of damage with different triggers. How is hitting someone in the back with a critical different than hitting someone in the back with a sneak attack, or hitting someone in the back with a power attack?

FelixG
2010-08-30, 07:59 PM
This argument is making me like the wound point variant.

I love that system, i love it so much.